Bloomberg Report Suggests Comcast & Time Warner Merger Dead

andyring writes: According to Bloomberg News, the Time Warner/Comcast merger of raw evil is dead. Comcast plans as early as tomorrow to withdraw the merger proposal, "after regulators decided that the deal wouldn't help consumers, making approval unlikely" according to the story. If so, that means regulators won't have the chance to kill it themselves.

Comments

Bah ...

[gstoddart]

They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.

Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.

Re:Bah ...

[geekmux]

They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.

Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.

Absolutely correct. The only way you would get those involved to back off completely is if you threatened them with incarceration.

Not even fines would deter them, since fines are usually so laughingly small they're worth paying basically every time.

Re:Good

[jellomizer]

The issue with the price, is your are paying for the Service and the Infrastructure.
I much rather have two bills.
One for the infrastructure, and one for the Service.
Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.
We may have had limited options for the infrastructure, but you could choose ISP.

The problem is that We have both bundled together.

Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway

[RobinEggs]

The next time we have FTC and FCC leadership appointed by a Republican they'll just try the merger again, and they could easily succeed. I just don't think allowing the merger would seriously hurt the Republican president who did it. Republican strategists have their voters so anxious and paranoid over emotional topics like terrorism, gay marriage, marijuana, and immigration that who exactly would change their votes over internet service? Who would help the socialists take over and the floodgates open and another 9/11 happen just for ethical billing and some decent customer service?

No one who believes their lies would ever vote D or I for such a trifling issue.

Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway

[lgw]

Republians? Surely you jest. Take of the partisan hat and look at the actual data for Hillary Clinton, presumed Dem presidential candidate.

Her top 10 career donors are mostly investment banks (all the big names are there), but Time Warner and Cablevision make the top 10.

Will we get a GOP candidate not already in the pockets of investment banks and cable companies? I'm not holding my breath, but it's theoretically possible, unlike the Dem side which is already bought and paid for.

Help me out

[Ralph Wiggam]

If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?

Re:Help me out

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?

Because the oligarchy doesn't all get along with each other. It is more complicated than that. Just matter of who owns whom and where in the food chain they are in the process.

Re:Help me out

[grimmjeeper]

There are always limits when you're not a pure [insert government type here] in every sense. Sure, the US has oligarchical tendencies that are pretty strong. But it's not an outright oligarchy. The people with money can't just pay people off directly in the US. They have to do it under the table which adds a layer of complexity.

A secondary consideration would be competition from other interests who are "lobbying" against this merger. The bigger bribe wins. Or at least a competing bribe works to negate the initial bribe. Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.

Remember this when people say D vs R doesnt matter

[Optic7]

As much as I feel disappointed and disgusted by things that Obama and other Democrats have done over the last several years, I still don't buy the whole line that some people here on Slashdot trot out all the time: that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing.

You know that this deal would have sailed through and there's no way the FCC would have pushed for Title 2 regulation, if a Republican were in the White House right now.

So remember, as dumb and crappy as some parties' actions have been lately, who you vote for still matters, even if only in limited ways. Yes, some large scale issues are pretty much a wash between the two, but there are still some issues that you can have an influence in with your vote. Pick the party and candidates who you feel are more likely to be on the same side of the issues you care about, regardless of what the naysayers say.

Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.

D vs R doesnt matter

[edawstwin]

Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.

You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.

Re:D vs R doesnt matter

[Anonymous Coward]

They're different at the margins.

As it is the way with most things. All this political apathy is idiotic. Politics hasn't really changed all that much in over 200 years. People complained bitterly about politicians and politics in 1830 at least as much as we do today, except things like graft and cronyism were way worse. No student of history could legitimately say that there were no substantive differences in parties and policies in any decade that didn't change the course of American history.

Grow up, people. Vote for gods sake, and stop whining about lack of choice like little pussies. Or crying about how your vote doesn't matter, because "the man" or "the system" or whatever. Yes, there is "a system". Power is stratified. No shit, Sherlock. But that has nothing to do with whether your vote or not.

Look, it's a collection action problem. You have a responsibility to vote. If everybody was a cry baby like you, then nobody would vote and this country would be ruled by even more extreme ideologies than it is right now. But the more people who stop being pussies and get up off their ass and vote, the more things will get better. They'll be a far cry from perfect, and we'll still complain bitterly about politics and politicians, but an engaged citizenry is absolutely necessary to prevent things from going completely off the rails.

I think older people vote more because their expectations are different. Plus, they've experienced how turnout matters. They're not constantly staring at their navel, chasing ass, or masturbating. And they have some kind of interest in changing things, instead of talking and dreaming about change.

Hail Dorothy!

[Okian Warrior]

Hail Dorothy!